Hopefully the next Ronald Reagan is about to step onto the stage.
If history does in fact repeat itself, we're overdue for a Ronald Reagan type conservative president.

Jimmy Carter screwed this country up so bad that Ronald Reagan was elected in a landslide victory. Now that Obama has done a far worse job than Carter ever did, maybe the next president will set this country back on track.

Right now Ted Cruz is the only republican candidate worth a second look.

We need to break down the Hillary voters into why they will vote for her and where they'll come from. As with Obama, there's another 1st - the first woman president. This is an emotional vote. This category may pull female voters and voters influenced by females from all parties.

There are the Clinton faithful - no matter what they do, they'll support a Clinton. This is an emotional vote.

There are the I'll vote for anyone to keep a Democrat in the White House voters. This is maybe a blend of emotion and philosophy.

There are those uncommitted idealists who will vote for her as a protest against the opposing candidate. This is an emotional vote.

Where are the voters that are Centrists? They are the ones that can be drawn either to the Right or to the Left depending on the candidate. These are issue voters.

There are the radical voters on the Right. They will not likely vote for her, but their vote could weigh in her favor. They will vote 3rd party, or not vote. This is either/or issues/emotion.

Are there many Left leaning voters still pissed off in 2016 about Benghazi? Are there other foreign policy issues that can draw Left leaning voters to the Right?

There needs to be a template created with all the variables, all of Hillary's strengths, real or imagined, emotional or hard fact, and then overlay each possible candidate to see who can be the magnet to draw the voters away from Hillary.

Any candidate will have to convince everyone they are someone who can lead, not bully America. Changes in Congressional leadership would be a huge step forward in that area.

When Hillary begins interviewing for leadership roles, handpicking her team this early...

__________________Freedom has a taste to those who fight and almost die, that the protected will never know.

What we need is a Barry Goldwater. If the GOP wants to win they need a principled person not beholden to the evangelical Right.

__________________This is the law:
There is no possible victory in defense,
The sword is more important than the shield,
And skill is more important than either,
The final weapon is the brain.
All else is supplemental.

What we need is a Barry Goldwater. If the GOP wants to win they need a principled person not beholden to the evangelical Right.

They will at least need to tip the hat to the Christian/moral conservatives that make up a majority of the base.

Imagine the democrats becoming suddenly anti-abortion. They would lose more than they gained. Most evangelicals aren't going to suddenly go democrat, and a lot of their base will stay home. Same goes with the republicans. If they abandon their base, they aren't going to pick up a lot if secular votes from the dems, who, like everyone else are more likely to vote pocket book issues. Look at the last census and the demographics based on religion. Over 70% Christian, 19% unaffiliated. Fishing in the bigger pond makes sense.

They will at least need to tip the hat to the Christian/moral conservatives that make up a majority of the base.

Imagine the democrats becoming suddenly anti-abortion. They would lose more than they gained. Most evangelicals aren't going to suddenly go democrat, and a lot of their base will stay home. Same goes with the republicans. If they abandon their base, they aren't going to pick up a lot if secular votes from the dems, who, like everyone else are more likely to vote pocket book issues. Look at the last census and the demographics based on religion. Over 70% Christian, 19% unaffiliated. Fishing in the bigger pond makes sense.

I think the moral crusaders will hold their noses and vote for a non moral crusader candidate who isn't interested in creating a sex police force, than vote for a progressive. Maybe they stay home even and their personal moral nonsense is kept from polluting the political discourse and process.

It comes down down to this. They could either accept that people live different lives than they do and government can not and should not change that. Or they can watch as another leftist strolls up on Inauguration Day.

But all this is an academic debate since the Republican Party is incapable of producing anyone other than garbage.

Sent from my iPhone using Ohub Campfire mobile app

__________________"Come join the murder, come fly with black. We'll give you freedom from the human tribe."

When was that last time the the so called "moral crusader" candidate actually advocated for "sex police"? I find it interesting that this keeps coming up. Do you suppose that a "moral crusader" who was into the whole redistribution facist neo-liberal progressive control thing could win? It's funny that "we" can't stand a "religious moralist" espousing his beliefs when we know darn well he won't/can't make abortion illegal or gay relationships illegal (in fact most would be fine with the civil union thing), but we seem to think that liberal facisim is okay enough to let the neo-lib progressives win by not voting against them and jeopradize things like the freedom to worship in public, RKBA, pursuit of happiness, and accumulation of wealth. Sometimes all I can think is "pot meet kettle."

I'll honestly be surprised if Hillary is the democratic nominee. She's too old, and will be even older by the time the next election rolls around. The democratic voters are getting younger, and they want someone they can relate to, someone who they think will have the same views on issues that they do. Hillary is too old for them to relate with her. If there was a younger woman who stepped up, they'd flock to her way before they'd flock to an old lady.

I get very befuddled by "conservatives" who say they'll vote third party before someone like Rick Perry, or whoever. Understand - in our system, a third party vote is a vote for a democrat. We need to amass support like never before.

They will at least need to tip the hat to the Christian/moral conservatives that make up a majority of the base.

Imagine the democrats becoming suddenly anti-abortion. They would lose more than they gained. Most evangelicals aren't going to suddenly go democrat, and a lot of their base will stay home. Same goes with the republicans. If they abandon their base, they aren't going to pick up a lot if secular votes from the dems, who, like everyone else are more likely to vote pocket book issues. Look at the last census and the demographics based on religion. Over 70% Christian, 19% unaffiliated. Fishing in the bigger pond makes sense.

Republicans need to be more worried about picking up new voters from the middle, than trying to hang only hang onto the old ones. It's been proven in the past that only keeping your voters happy, and never gaining new voters means you'll lose. They really need to stop only appeasing the old voters, and start appealing to the people in the middle, to try and get them to vote conservative, otherwise it will be victory after victory after victory for the democrats. And the middle voters are tired of having religious morals shoved down their throats. And they blatantly showed that with the massive outcries against the idiot republicans who kept pushing the abortion subject.

It's stupid to think that you can win the presidency if all you ever get are the low electoral vote states. Who cares if we win over the entire west if California and New York exceed the number of votes we get in the entire west?

Start appealing to new voters, try and win states with bigger amounts of electoral votes, and try to make more people happy, instead of the same old stuff. Because only keeping the same people happy, without getting new people, is why conservatives keep losing.

I'm sorry, but it's impossible to win if you need 51%, you have 49%, and you flat out refuse to get another 2%, because you think it will void your morals or make you feel unhappy.

If all you care about are your morals, and forcing them down other people's throats, and all the 2% care about are other topics, then you'll never win.

I get very befuddled by "conservatives" who say they'll vote third party before someone like Rick Perry, or whoever. Understand - in our system, a third party vote is a vote for a democrat. We need to amass support like never before.

Which is why it bugs me that the whole propaganda system runs off of money, because then the candidates just spout off what the corporations want them to say. I wish money could be taken out of the equation, and candidates would actually start listening to people, instead of corporations.

Which is why it bugs me that the whole propaganda system runs off of money, because then the candidates just spout off what the corporations want them to say. I wish money could be taken out of the equation, and candidates would actually start listening to people, instead of corporations.

Couldn't agree more.

If it were up to me, we'd pay our leaders far more than we do, create 100% financing of elections, eliminate private campaign funds and PACs.

Pay these guys well and then eliminate the rest of the money and pork spending and you'd see where our representatives' real loyalties lay. And we'd save billions every year if there were no personal financial incentives.